architect_runtime_start

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already disclose that this is a non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds the executor role and a vague return note ("Returns what waits"), but it does not clarify side effects, blocking behavior, or what the returned "waits" actually represent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The definition is very short and front-loads the core action. The second sentence, "Returns what waits," is ambiguous and earns less of its place, but the overall structure avoids waste.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain the return value, but "Returns what waits" is too vague for an agent to understand what starts, what is returned, or how to interpret the result. For a runtime-start tool with complex sibling orchestration tools, this leaves a significant gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (workspace and only). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline of 3 when structured fields carry the parameter documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ("Start a run") and adds the execution mode ("harness mode: the host agent is the executor"). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as architect_runs_start.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase "harness mode: the host agent is the executor" implies the tool should be used when the host agent itself will execute the run, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. Usage is only indirectly implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.